The Monarchy under Charles

[Osipi]

Well said - to both your posts - spot on.

Many people assume that no royal has a right to say anything and they are wrong.

The Queen has her private audience with the PM to express her views. The rest of the family have the same rights as any other citizen to express their opinions but most choose to steer clear of political matters.

Charles knows where the line is. Most people in the general public - and it seems on this board - do not.

Actually when we stop and think about it, as the Prince of Wales, other than fulfilling royal duties and at times, filling in for his mother, Charles is really not required to do anything outside of that. He's not jet setting around the world on lavish vacations 10 times a year nor has he actually ever been a womanizer and a playboy with mega scandals to his name. He's not pontificating about the political issues of the day but rather expressing views on what would benefit the people as a whole. AND he backs it up with action through his Prince's Trust foundations, his own work with Highgrove and in the many visits he makes all over to be a part of what he's trying to put in action.

This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If and when he does ascend the throne, this man will be one that knows intimately who his people are and what their situations are by the years of experience he's had actually working with them and for them.

Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.

 

[fearghas]

This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If

Unfortunately I feel that this is the very reason why so many people dislike him. There are many people who don't like those who are good at or know things, especially when it has nothing to do with sport, pop music or movie stars.
Charles has spent so much of his time actually achieving things, not bad for someone who doesnt actually have to do anything.

 

[fearghas]

Can you please point to political meddling as opposed to expressing a public opinion on a non-political matter - architecture isn't a political issue - the military, the economy, foreign affairs, taxation etc is.

I might be wrong but dodn't the Queen actually express her dislike of the proposed/actual cuts to the military. If she did then that is an actual example of the queen acting on a political issue.

 

[MARG]

Can you please point to political meddling as opposed to expressing a public opinion on a non-political matter - architecture isn't a political issue - the military, the economy, foreign affairs, taxation etc is.

I might be wrong but dodn't the Queen actually express her dislike of the proposed/actual cuts to the military. If she did then that is an actual example of the queen acting on a political issue.

You are correct. HM did voice her concern at the proposed cuts to the military. It must have been really bad and very important to her for her to have done such a thing. She would not have taken such a step lightly.

 

[Daria_S]

Actually when we stop and think about it, as the Prince of Wales, other than fulfilling royal duties and at times, filling in for his mother, Charles is really not required to do anything outside of that. He's not jet setting around the world on lavish vacations 10 times a year nor has he actually ever been a womanizer and a playboy with mega scandals to his name. He's not pontificating about the political issues of the day but rather expressing views on what would benefit the people as a whole. AND he backs it up with action through his Prince's Trust foundations, his own work with Highgrove and in the many visits he makes all over to be a part of what he's trying to put in action.

This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If and when he does ascend the throne, this man will be one that knows intimately who his people are and what their situations are by the years of experience he's had actually working with them and for them.

Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.

Well put! And yes, some politicians ought to take a leaf out of His Highness's book and actually pay attention to what the people need and are looking for. He'll be a very good monarch when the time comes.

 

[fascinator]

Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.

Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.

Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. But then, he would need to be elected. Do you think Charles would deign to grovel for votes and act in such a base republican manner?



Please take this in jest.

Charles seems like a normal well rounded man who understands that he has a job to do and that the future of the monarchy depends on him doing it well.

That said, I do think that he and Camilla show real warmth and compassion. The photo of the Tottenham woman hugging him was extraordinary and would have been unimaginable years ago. Still, it goes too far to attribute to him the qualities necessary to lead a nation in any real sense or to function outside of a world where his greatest achievement was simply being born.

 

[Bundtrock]

"
21st century

The monarchy currently remains secure in the United Kingdom with MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people.[4] In 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped slightly with one poll showing that only 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[4] In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[5] In the wake of the 2009 MP's expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority.[6]
In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[7] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[8]"


Republicanism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My thoughts;


Without question, whether Charles should become King, whether the Monarchy should continue, is solely a question for the British people to decide. IF I am understanding these polls correctly, roughly 70% favor retaining the Monarchy at this time. That is a SOLID, SUPER MAJORITY, so until that changes it would seem the British people have settled the question.


Likewise, with The Act of Settlement and hundreds of years of precedent, if Charles is alive when Her Majesty receives her eternal reward for a job well done, he WILL be King, period.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.

Why hasn't he had a 'real' job for decades? Because he was expected to give up the job he had in the navy to do royal duties - otherwise he would have remained in the navy for decades longer. That comment was simply uncalled for - due to being born who he was he wasn't allowed to have a paid job after his mid-late 20s but had to support his mother.

I think a Cambridge education the equal of Harvard - so Charles and Obama do have a similar education standard.

Although there are no reports of adultery from Obama there have been a number of presidents who have also committed adultery - a certain Mr Clinton comes to mind.

Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. But then, he would need to be elected. Do you think Charles would deign to grovel for votes and act in such a base republican manner?

If you had actually read what he said he said that people should realise that not everyone has the ability to do everything - and his staff member took it to be exactly as you have done.

What he said was that not everyone can reach the top - e.g. not every child can be a doctor - they haven't got the brains for it - and they should realise that at some point in their lives.

A man who is a realist actually.

No Charles wouldn't grovel for votes - because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all - but he has to take up that role when the time comes and will do so. He didn't choose to do so but having been born into the role he has spent his entire life preparing for it by serving the nation - unlike elected politicians who only go into the role for themselves. If you believe a politician has any other motive than personal aggrandisement then I am afraid you are living in dreamland.

Please take this in jest.

Charles seems like a normal well rounded man who understands that he has a job to do and that the future of the monarchy depends on him doing it well.

I think when you insult a future Head of State who has worked hard at what he does for 40 years then you can't be taken in jest.

That said, I do think that he and Camilla show real warmth and compassion. The photo of the Tottenham woman hugging him was extraordinary and would have been unimaginable years ago.

It would have happened years ago as well - it did at different times throughout his time as PoW because he has always genuinely cared for the people in these situations and has done more to help them personally than any government - as attested by his Princes' Trust and its work in these areas and he is going to increase that work now - both through the trust and his own pocket.

[quote[Still, it goes too far to attribute to him the qualities necessary to lead a nation in any real sense or to function outside of a world where his greatest achievement was simply being born.[/QUOTE]

He most certainly has the qualities necessary to lead a nation - whatever they may be. He has compassion and a love of his country. He has an education. He has been at the centre of its life for his entire life. He is the best prepared future leader anywhere - due to the time he has had to prepare and to learn.

Because he was born who he was he has had no say over his life's eventual ending but he has carved a role for himself while he waits for his mother to die. He could have sat back and collected stamps and shot things (as George V did) or he could have shot things, gone to nightclubs, gambled, changed his mistresses as often as his socks, drunk and eaten to excess (as Edward VII did) but he didn't follow those examples. He worked to create a legacy - the Prince's Trust - he got involved in the nation in a real sense and has always tried to make a difference. That is what a leader does and he has done it consistently.

He made one bad decision - he married the wrong women 30 years ago and since then many people have written him off. That is so unfortunate for him as he has done so much good but all a lot of people want to judge him on was that awful decision to put duty to his country first and marry Diana.

 

[fascinator]

This is baffling. I was responding to a post that Charles would make a good president. I did not agree. You apparently did agree, yet you expend a great deal of ire and verbiage to ultimately agree with my conclusion ("because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all")
The most important quality of a leader is that she LEADS, and if she has no desire to lead, then she is not suited to lead and she therefore lacks the qualities necessary to lead a nation. So, apart from the blustering indignation, doesn't your post just affirm what I originally said?

• I wasn't comparing Cambridge to Harvard. My point was that Obama gained admission to schools based on merit. You know quite a bit about Prince Charles, so you can compare and contrast this as you wish and come to your own conclusions.

• I did read Prince Charles's memo. Quite a number of people agree with my reading of it, though there are differing views: Has Prince Charles got ideas above his station? - Education News, Education - The Independent While the views he expressed are open to interpretation, it would be unreasonable to say that my summary of his statements did not closely correspond to the logical and prevailing interpretation of what he wrote in the memo. I would allow that his intended meaning may have been different.

• I don't believe Prince Charles had the option of sitting back and doing nothing all of these years. It is not the example his mother set for him, not what the BP would have stood for and finally, dare I say, not in his nature.

Why hasn't he had a 'real' job for decades? Because he was expected to give up the job he had in the navy to do royal duties - otherwise he would have remained in the navy for decades longer. That comment was simply uncalled for - due to being born who he was he wasn't allowed to have a paid job after his mid-late 20s but had to support his mother.

I think a Cambridge education the equal of Harvard - so Charles and Obama do have a similar education standard.

Although there are no reports of adultery from Obama there have been a number of presidents who have also committed adultery - a certain Mr Clinton comes to mind.



If you had actually read what he said he said that people should realise that not everyone has the ability to do everything - and his staff member took it to be exactly as you have done.

What he said was that not everyone can reach the top - e.g. not every child can be a doctor - they haven't got the brains for it - and they should realise that at some point in their lives.

A man who is a realist actually.

No Charles wouldn't grovel for votes - because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all - but he has to take up that role when the time comes and will do so. He didn't choose to do so but having been born into the role he has spent his entire life preparing for it by serving the nation - unlike elected politicians who only go into the role for themselves. If you believe a politician has any other motive than personal aggrandisement then I am afraid you are living in dreamland.



I think when you insult a future Head of State who has worked hard at what he does for 40 years then you can't be taken in jest.

It would have happened years ago as well - it did at different times throughout his time as PoW because he has always genuinely cared for the people in these situations and has done more to help them personally than any government - as attested by his Princes' Trust and its work in these areas and he is going to increase that work now - both through the trust and his own pocket.

He most certainly has the qualities necessary to lead a nation - whatever they may be. He has compassion and a love of his country. He has an education. He has been at the centre of its life for his entire life. He is the best prepared future leader anywhere - due to the time he has had to prepare and to learn.

Because he was born who he was he has had no say over his life's eventual ending but he has carved a role for himself while he waits for his mother to die. He could have sat back and collected stamps and shot things (as George V did) or he could have shot things, gone to nightclubs, gambled, changed his mistresses as often as his socks, drunk and eaten to excess (as Edward VII did) but he didn't follow those examples. He worked to create a legacy - the Prince's Trust - he got involved in the nation in a real sense and has always tried to make a difference. That is what a leader does and he has done it consistently.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is baffling. I was responding to a post that Charles would make a good president. I did not agree. You apparently did agree, yet you expend a great deal of ire and verbiage to ultimately agree with my conclusion ("because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all") [/qutoe]

The Queen is the same - would prefer to be a countrywoman but due to her birth realises that she as to be a leader and she has done that fabulously well for nearly 60 years but that doesn't mean it is what she wanted to do all her life.

Charles is the same - not choosing to be a leader but accepting that that is his role in life and done the best he can to prepare for that role.

The most important quality of a leader is that she LEADS, and if she has no desire to lead, then she is not suited to lead and she therefore lacks the qualities necessary to lead a nation. So, apart from the blustering indignation, doesn't your post just affirm what I originally said?

You are looking at the situation from the point of view of people like you and I who can make that choice but not from the point of view of people who were born to lead - and the upper classes in Britain for generations have been raised to believe that that is their role - that being a leader is the responsiblity of those born to great privilege - so for the Queen and Charles being a leader wasn't something they chose but something they were raised to do and something they have accepted as their role in life

• I wasn't comparing Cambridge to Harvard. My point was that Obama gained admission to schools based on merit. You know quite a bit about Prince Charles, so you can compare and contrast this as you wish and come to your own conclusions.

You stated you would prefer to have a Harvard educated leader and I simply pointed out that Charles is Cambridge educated (and yes his results wouldn't have guaranteed anyone else a place there but his degree was earned on merit and to suggest otherwise is to further your insults heaped on Charles)

• I did read Prince Charles's memo. Quite a number of people agree with my reading of it, though there are differing views: Has Prince Charles got ideas above his station? - Education News, Education - The Independent While the views he expressed are open to interpretation, it would be unreasonable to say that my summary of his statements did not closely correspond to the logical and prevailing interpretation of what he wrote in the memo. I would allow that his intended meaning may have been different.

What he actually said “What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities? - clearly expressing the idea that people need to realise their limitations. I see kids every year thinking that they are going to be doctors and lawyers and then they are devastated when they don't get into that course because they haven't believed their teachers who tell them they won't get the marks - that is all that he is saying - not that people shoudn't strive to reach the top but that people should be able to realise that they aren't all capable - unfortunately a lot of people - many in the link you quoted - didn't read the actual words and took the word 'capablities' to mean 'station' - two very different words. He went on to blame the fact that children aren't tested and told what those academic limits are - or what other limits they have e.g. we had a student at my school a number of years ago who went through the entire 'leadership course' we run but when the crunch came none of the teachers or his peers elected him to a prefects position because he simply wasn't cut out to be a leader for a lot of personal reasons - his parents protested to the school and tried to sue the school for not electing him to a prefect position - Charles would say that that was a person not realising their capablitilites - not saying he shouldn't have tried out to be a leader but should have accepted the fact that he wasn't one and simply moved on with life.

• I don't believe Prince Charles had the option of sitting back and doing nothing all of these years. It is not the example his mother set for him, not what the BP would have stood for and finally, dare I say, not in his nature.

The last sentence is the crucial one - it isn't in his nature to do nothing - his education and upbringing had been about service and so he has served but had his nature been different then there wouldn't have been a lot that anyone could have done about it e.g. William has already gone against the plans for his life with his extension of his military career - he was supposed to have already been doing full-time royal duties for about two to three years but he said 'no thanks' and I do suspect that he might even do another extension in 2013 (which he has already intimated) - Charles could have done the same thing in the 70s and fought to remain in the navy or have simply stayed at Highgrove and done little and what could anyone really have done - with the system of inheritance if he hadn't appeared in public since say 1975 but had remained at Highgrove talking to his trees he would still be the heir to the throne.

His get up and go is absolute proof of leadership - he set up the Prince's Trust and has overseen its operations for years - evidence of leadership abilities of course - but let's not let the truth get in the way of a false belief.

 

[COUNTESS]

Much of what he is, is because he is the POW. Does he have the intellect to get into Cambridge, Harvard, on his own,I have no idea. He has his position, to which he has a right. He will be a fine king, as not much will be expected of him. There have been plenty of philandering presidents, not our present one and plenty of philandering princes and kings. You cannot use that indicator. No one know what has been suggested to him, as to setting up the Princes Trust and how he would have lioved his life without the scores of people who do much for him each day. He will be a "leader" because of his birth.

 

[fascinator]

You must be a speed typist.

You stated you would prefer to have a Harvard educated leader

No I didn't. My quote specifically referred to rising based on merit, not Cambridge vs. Harvard. You can copy and paste if you like. "Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit."

You seem bent on the idea that no one read the memo Charles wrote and convinced of an interpretation that is at odds with the plain reading of the text. This is fine, but you are also insisting that a reading of WHAT PRINCE CHARLES WROTE is somehow a conspiracy of the uninformed against him. To aid in the interpretation of the sentence you quoted, one need only look to Prince Charles lui-meme: "It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

You can probably allow that his words, at very least, hinted at views that are not in keeping with modern Bristish concepts of an individual's role in society and the possibility of transcending one's circumstances. You may also, perhaps, grant that these views may be viewed as self-serving for someone born into Prince Charles' role.

Again, you can interpret this as you wish.

He went on to blame the fact that children aren't tested and told what those academic limits are - or what other limits they have e.g. we had a student at my school a number of years ago who went through the entire 'leadership course' we run but when the crunch came none of the teachers or his peers elected him to a prefects position because he simply wasn't cut out to be a leader for a lot of personal reasons - his parents protested to the school and tried to sue the school for not electing him to a prefect position - Charles would say that that was a person not realising their capablitilites - not saying he shouldn't have tried out to be a leader but should have accepted the fact that he wasn't one and simply moved on with life.

How nice, then, that Prince Charles's own poor grades did not get in the way of him getting into Cambridge and that he was admitted nonetheless, because the institution had confidence that he could achieve at a level higher that what he had actually demonstrated. I don't understand his rather passionate plea that others not receive this same boost of confidence in their potential, rather than demonstrated, abilities. Would this, again, be a self serving point of view disguised as a value?

let's not let the truth get in the way of a false belief.

Indeed.

 

[Zonk]

We can speak in generalizations, but let's try to keep Obama or any US President (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Garfield, etc.) out of this thread.

 

[Osipi]

We can speak in generalizations, but let's try to keep Obama or any US President (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Garfield, etc.) out of this thread.

Sorry Zonk. I started it all with my off the cuff comment.

All I meant to state was that Charles has the qualities of a man that I would admire in a position of leadership.

 

[Zonk]

That's fine. The problem begins when we (and I am using the general we) throw in our usual political rancor, and we start going off topic about the differing US political views, etc. We have enough drama in this thread without throwing out our red and blue thoughts If you know what I mean.

 

[COUNTESS]

Look, if not by accident of birth, he would, probabaly, be in some middle management job. He is hardly, a "leader". No great intellect or drive. Most of his accomplishments are because he had a great fortune, time and unlimited access to mentors and funds. He is wise to like his position, which has given him great latitude. Since, being king, requires nothing more than what he is, he will be a fine monarch for as long as he is in the position. Who is against him? He will be king, because of his birth, not because he has any particular qualifications. It is not a merit job.

 

[camelot23ca]

Unfortunately I feel that this is the very reason why so many people dislike him. There are many people who don't like those who are good at or know things, especially when it has nothing to do with sport, pop music or movie stars.
Charles has spent so much of his time actually achieving things, not bad for someone who doesnt actually have to do anything.

I think this is a good point! Charles' interests don't appeal to a broad segment of the population, (although some, like organic farming, have become trendy). Which is fine, not everyone can, or wants to be the guy next door, but I think combined with his sometimes awkward personality, his "different-ness" has probably turned some people off. I actually think Charles has come into his own over the last several years, though and I hope people will look at some of the things he's actually accomplished while he's been Prince of Wales before dismissing him.

 

[camelot23ca]

Unfortunately I feel that this is the very reason why so many people dislike him. There are many people who don't like those who are good at or know things, especially when it has nothing to do with sport, pop music or movie stars.
Charles has spent so much of his time actually achieving things, not bad for someone who doesnt actually have to do anything.

I think this is a good point! Charles' interests don't appeal to a broad segment of the population, (although some, like organic farming, have become trendy). Which is fine, not everyone can, or wants to be the guy next door, but I think combined with his sometimes awkward personality, his "different-ness" has probably turned some people off. I actually think Charles has come into his own over the last several years, though and I hope people will look at some of the things he's actually accomplished while he's been Prince of Wales before dismissing him.

 

[Tyger]

We can speak in generalizations, but let's try to keep Obama or any US President (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Garfield, etc.) out of this thread.

Garfield? Garfield! Look who's being provocative!

Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.

Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. But then, he would need to be elected. Do you think Charles would deign to grovel for votes and act in such a base republican manner?



Please take this in jest.

The poster said it was a jest and I read it as a jest - yet consider the dialog that eventuated. An example of how text can be read in very different ways.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Our country has had many an adulterer in the Oval Office. I do think one of Charles' problems is that his passions aren't popular. I admit that I sometimes find what he believes in boring, but I admirer him for doing the research to become such an expert on his causes. He cares a lot about the environment and our green spaces, and even though I tend to ignore such things, I admire how he refuses to ignore them and cares about the world he is leaving to his grand children.

 

[fascinator]

Look, if not by accident of birth, he would, probabaly, be in some middle management job. He is hardly, a "leader". No great intellect or drive. Most of his accomplishments are because he had a great fortune, time and unlimited access to mentors and funds. He is wise to like his position, which has given him great latitude. Since, being king, requires nothing more than what he is, he will be a fine monarch for as long as he is in the position. Who is against him? He will be king, because of his birth, not because he has any particular qualifications. It is not a merit job.

Thank you. This is so clear and obvious. Charles is famous for his lack of charm and presence. Even his own parents dislike him :-( I don't understand the push to rewrite history and cast him as a brilliant scholar and beloved leader. Average. JUST. I think he'll be a wonderful king and I really like him, but he is clearly not someone who would have distinguished himself in the "real" world.

 

[Madame Royale]

Look, if not by accident of birth, he would, probabaly, be in some middle management job. He is hardly, a "leader". No great intellect or drive. Most of his accomplishments are because he had a great fortune, time and unlimited access to mentors and funds. He is wise to like his position, which has given him great latitude. Since, being king, requires nothing more than what he is, he will be a fine monarch for as long as he is in the position. Who is against him? He will be king, because of his birth, not because he has any particular qualifications. It is not a merit job.

I tend to agree with the above statement for the most part.

Though I do think he has drive to contribute, he is however bound by certain expectations and must conduct himself accordingly.

Charles' method of success I think will reflect the way he continues to interact with the public.

He has the ability to empathise well with peoples from all walks of life. He knows how to work a crowd and as such, can romance those in his company with great success. Women and men alike.

It's nice seeing him engage in conversation. He's an animated fellow and has a very cheeky smile that radiates.

He knows enough about topical subjects to weigh in on the key issues, and expresses his opinions in ways that talk about the issues broadly before narrowing down to his own interpretations. This reflects his ability to be a true thinker.

He doesn't claim to be an expert, and only ever offers a thought, a view, a plausible understanding.

He's a very savvy communicator.

Even his own parents dislike him

There is nothing to support that. It's tabloid fodder.

 

[fearghas]

Thank you. This is so clear and obvious. Charles is famous for his lack of charm and presence. Even his own parents dislike him :-( I don't understand the push to rewrite history and cast him as a brilliant scholar and beloved leader. Average. JUST. I think he'll be a wonderful king and I really like him, but he is clearly not someone who would have distinguished himself in the "real" world.

Actually, having once had the good fortune to talk to him, I can say that he has great charm and presence. On a one to one basis, or talking to memebers of a crowd, he knows how to speak and listen to you.

 

[MARG]

Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.

Well now, that is just plain nasty! Whatever else Charles is he is not a "dilettante" defined by Merriam Webster as:

• A person who claims an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.

The use of the "pejorative" term adulterer defined as:

• a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle

As for not having time outside his royal duties, I suggest you familiarise yourself with exactly what he does do with his time as it is obvious that in all the threads and all the posts, the salient facts have escaped you.

He works when he doesn't have to. He works to improve the lives of others when he doesn't have to. I think that takes up a fair amount of his time and really cuts into his skiing time!

In this arena, your above comments are merely a vindictive and vapid insult to substitute for substantive shortcoming in your argument. It is insulting and was intended to be so.

Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. . . . .

Either you didn't bother to actually read the memo quoted or you failed to understand the definition of the term actually used, "capabilities":

• A talent or abilities for development or use for a specific purpose.

One's capabilities have nothing whatsoever to do with "station in life" but, to editorialise Charles statement by adding pejoratives is obviously your way of slagging him off in a sneaky and underhanded misrepresentation.

Please take this in jest.

But it is not a jest and you never intended that it should be. To imply that it is merely shows a lack of belief in your own integrity.

Charles seems like a normal well rounded man who understands that he has a job to do and that the future of the monarchy depends on him doing it well.

That said, I do think that he and Camilla show real warmth and compassion. The photo of the Tottenham woman hugging him was extraordinary and would have been unimaginable years ago.

Still, it goes too far to attribute to him the qualities necessary to lead a nation in any real sense or to function outside of a world where his greatest achievement was simply being born.

Yes indeed, you really do not like this man at all and will not allow that he has achieved anything further than being born. However, if that is the premise on which you base any arguments against Prince Charles achievements, why bother to pretend that rude, vulgar and misleading statements made by you about him are merely a jest?

 

[Tyger]

Thank you. This is so clear and obvious. Charles is famous for his lack of charm and presence. Even his own parents dislike him :-( I don't understand the push to rewrite history and cast him as a brilliant scholar and beloved leader. Average. JUST. I think he'll be a wonderful king and I really like him, but he is clearly not someone who would have distinguished himself in the "real" world.

Here I would disagree. He's someone who's actually been weighed down by his position - as constrained as anyone is in a class society. Given that what he has done he has done in extremely limiting - albeit lush - circumstances, I would say he would likely have been a mover and shaker in some way if he had been free to really do whatever he wanted. That is the evidence from how he has conducted his life.

He is very much a man of his generation - interested in all things alternative, natural and spiritually inclusive - familiar to anyone out of the 60's. Much of what Charles is interested in and pursues is in sync with the avant garde thinking that changed the way we live and eat and how we grow our food and see our planned environment. Charles has never been 'out-of-step' - from what I am seeing - but has been ahead of the curve in England. Much of what he passionately pursues has been afoot in the US for several decades - albeit Charles pursues his interests with distinctively English nuances.

Now you're being a bit provoking - his parents do not dislike him - since when? Where are you getting this? I'm not aware that Charles is 'famous for his lack of charm and presence', either - quite the reverse. He very much comes across as a charming man with definite 'presence'. But that's from what I hear, and is also my opinion from what I see.

I would disagree on your other two points. I cannot judge his intellect but he is a thinker and a reflective man who was given a good education and it has made all the difference - made him use what he has to good advantage. We simply will never know what he could have achieved 'on his own'. Until his misfortunes with his first wife, he was wildly loved a la William. As for the leadership part - he has yet to be King - but he has clearly led in his business ventures and his charlty work.

 

[MARG]

Thank you. This is so clear and obvious. Charles is famous for his lack of charm and presence.

What a load of old cobblers. Can you supply any credible verification?

Even his own parents dislike him :-

Now that is an unequivocal statement of fact and I do believe it is not unreasonable to ask for a factual, reliable verification.

( I don't understand the push to rewrite history and cast him as a brilliant scholar and beloved leader. Average. JUST. I think he'll be a wonderful king and I really like him, but he is clearly not someone who would have distinguished himself in the "real" world.

Now here I beg to differ. Andrew and Edward have not managed to achieve much of anything and yet here is poor old average Prince Charles' masterminding 'The Prince's Trust' and a host of other patronages and initiatives.

No one is trying to cast him as a brilliant scholar and beloved leader, although I do believe he sets a great example of interest, education and innovation, and is admired and respect by many, many people and displays a tolerance sorely lacking in your latest posts.

But you know all this, or would do, if you had bothered to read any of the links that so many have posted, specifically for you, on this thread.

Really, in the final analysis, your personal animus toward Charles seems to have over-ridden your common sense, your manners, and any regard for a reasonable or objective dialogue.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Very well written and I agree 100%.

 

[camelot23ca]

Look, if not by accident of birth, he would, probabaly, be in some middle management job. He is hardly, a "leader". No great intellect or drive. Most of his accomplishments are because he had a great fortune, time and unlimited access to mentors and funds. He is wise to like his position, which has given him great latitude. Since, being king, requires nothing more than what he is, he will be a fine monarch for as long as he is in the position. Who is against him? He will be king, because of his birth, not because he has any particular qualifications. It is not a merit job.

"If not for an accident of birth" applies to everyone, though. By an accident of birth I was born into a nice life in a rich country instead of into a slum in Calcutta. I didn't EARN my loving parents or the decent public schools and healthcare I've had access to since birth. I like to think that my achievements in life have come about due to talent and hard work but I also realize that I started out luckier than most.
Yes, Charles has had tremendous good fortune and privilege in some areas of his life, (I would argue he's also had built in limitations most people don't have to deal with). But at least he's taken the opportunities he's been given and ran with them. I think he DOES have drive and most likely an above average, although not earth shaking, intellect.

 

[fascinator]

I think that Prince Charles' comments on the riots were among the most insightful and compassionate of any public figure.

 

[COUNTESS]

"If not for an accident of birth" applies to everyone, though. By an accident of birth I was born into a nice life in a rich country instead of into a slum in Calcutta. I didn't EARN my loving parents or the decent public schools and healthcare I've had access to since birth. I like to think that my achievements in life have come about due to talent and hard work but I also realize that I started out luckier than most.
Yes, Charles has had tremendous good fortune and privilege in some areas of his life, (I would argue he's also had built in limitations most people don't have to deal with). But at least he's taken the opportunities he's been given and ran with them. I think he DOES have drive and most likely an above average, although not earth shaking, intellect.

Oh, you are right. accident of birth has given many different things to different people. I was born in 1941 and am Jewish. Which means if I didn't have the great fortune to be born in this wonderful country, I, probably, would have been killed. So ,yes, of course, we are all products of this accident. Charles is fine and he will do his job as king, I don't see why the fuss. On the other hand he isn't working a full time job, trying to make a buck, struggling, raising a family. He has the distinct advantage of position and great wealth. When and if he wants to do something, all the tools are at his disposal.